The THORP Project (Hansard, 17 January 1990)

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I understand that British Nuclear Fuels' thermal oxide reprocessing plant is now nearing completion. The fuel receipt and storage facility is already operational, and commercial reprocessing is expected to begin in late 1992. The company already has contracts valued at up to £5 billion and has covered its investment in the plant. THORP will be a major export earner for the UK.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that following the Government's decision to cancel the threee PWRs there would seem to be less necessity for THORP than previously? Yet THORP is being extended. Is this solely because British Nuclear Fuels intends to obtain foreign 638 contracts? If so, is nuclear waste to be transported from around the world and reprocessed at THORP? There would seem to be great danger in transporting such waste.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the decision to retain nuclear power in the public sector does not affect the viability of THORP. BNFL has a full order book for the first 10 years of THORP"s operation. Two-thirds of these contracts are with overseas customers. The successor companies will take over responsibility for the home bought share of THORP.
On wastes, the contracts that are being signed include the options for the return of waste. The Government have made clear our intention that those options should be exercised and the waste returned.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the existing nuclear power stations —there are more than 15 and some will be with us for at least another 10 years—continue to have a need for reprocessing their spent fuel?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, there is a reprocessing facility at Sellafield for the fuel from the Magnox reactors. However, THORP is required for the reprocessing of fuel from the thermal oxide reactors.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the two-thirds of overseas contracts to which he referred were won by British Nuclear Fuels in the face of severe competition from the French industry? Can he also confirm that further negotiations are taking place with the German industry in order to commence their contracts at the turn of the century? If the industry were to close down would not over 15,000 jobs be lost? Would we not be handing over a thriving industry with a very rosy future to the French industry and lengthening our own dole queues?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, yes. I can confirm that 4,000 million tonnes of the 6,000 million tonnes due to be reprocessed over the next 10 years are from overseas. Half of that amount comes from Japan and the other half from West European countries. In addition, discussions are taking place with a number of customers which should guarantee the plant's future well into the next century. I can confirm that it is expected to sign additional reprocessing contracts with a number of German utilities very shortly.
I should also like to confirm the last supplementary question of the noble Lord. The THORP project is currently providing 5,000 jobs directly in the United Kingdom. BNFL estimates that it will sustain a further 10,000 jobs a year in supply companies during the final phases of construction.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that what he has just told us is not regarded by all of us as a matter for rejoicing? Not all of us are content that this country should become the nuclear waste dump of the world. We would be 639 happier for France to be that. Indeed, there is a widely held view among scientific people that each country should be responsible for its own nuclear waste. Does the noble Viscount agree that that would be the ideal solution?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, no. I have sought to explain that this country will not be the waste dump for the future. The Government feel that reprocessing is a proven and safe technology that keeps open the possibility of recycling the uranium for the future. It puts waste into a better form for storage and ultimate disposal and avoids leaving spent fuel as a problem to be tackled by future generations.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that no country is an island? We have a part to play in the world pollution problem. Sellafield has a great record in reducing the menace of highly dangerous radioactive waste.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, yes. As I said in a previous answer, it has a reputation for being able to deal with waste products from the Magnox reactors. I am certain that its reputation will continue.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, has there been a change of policy on the return of waste? My understanding is that although the option to return it has been in existence on contracts for reprocessing carried out until now, that option has not been exercised. Will the noble Viscount please confirm that there is a change of policy?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I cannot confirm that there has been a change of policy. Until now the spent fuel has not been reprocessed because THORP has not been commissioned. Therefore none of the waste has been capable of being returned. I confirm that it is the intention to return the waste.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to check his figure of 4,000 million tonnes of waste products to be reprocessed? Is he aware that that would account for the total output of British mines for 20 years? I find it very difficult to believe that THORP will be able to deal with such an amount of matter.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. The word "million" seems to have crept in. I apologise to the House. It is such a large error that I feel that the House would forgive me on this occasion.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, the House is very sympathetic to noble Lords in Waiting who get their millions wrong. I am sure that we shall be very happy to accept the explanation of the noble Viscount.
Perhaps I may ask him to concentrate for a moment on the finances of THORP. THORP is now two years behind schedule. It will cost £1.8 billion. That compares with the 1978 estimate of £300 640 million. The noble Viscount rightly said that it would be much more dependent in the future on foreign contracts. Can he give the House an estimate of the return on investment that BNFL is expecting?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the increase in costs has occurred from the last estimate which was revised in 1988 by a figure of some £200 million. At the same time there was a technical estimate that another 1,000 tonnes of base load capacity would be available over the next 10 years, half of which has already been committed. I am not in a position to give the figures for which the noble Lord has asked. I shall see whether I can discover them and write to him.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, does the noble Viscount care to answer the inference in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the transport of waste and of the finished product is dangerous?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, there is an inherent danger in the transport of any radioactive waste.

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, must have thought out the implications on employment should THORP close. Will the Minister write to the noble Lord asking him for his alternative proposals for the employment of those people who would be displaced if THORP were to close?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point. I was glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, remained in his place and was also able to hear the comment.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, I should like to clear up a small misunderstanding. I am perfectly well aware that THORP is not yet in operation. However, my earlier question referred to BNFL, which has been reprocessing spent fuel for 30 years. Am I correct in my understanding that when it had foreign contracts it did not return the waste? I asked about a change of policy for that reason.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I do not believe that there has been a change of policy concerning THORP. All the contracts that have been signed for the operation of THORP include the return of the waste.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the option for a fast reactor remains open it is important to be able to reprocess spent fuel in order to obtain plutonium from it?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, yes, I agree that being able to take out the plutonium will provide fuel for a fast reactor. There is also a certain amount of interest in mixing the plutonium with the uranium for a mixed oxide fuel.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister, but I can give him the answer now. There is a great need for labour in the field of renewable resources which could 641 certainly take up the loss at THORP. Can the Minister clarify his comments about what is called the "take-back" clause in the 1976 Act and the return of the reprocessed fuel? As I understand it, the vitrified substance —that is plutonium —is returned. Can he tell the House what will happen and what is now happening in other BNFL stations to the medium and low-range waste? Will it remain here? Will it be dumped? Will it be returned? What will happen to it.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I agree that it is difficult to identify entirely which piece of waste comes from which piece of reprocessed fuel. However, it is part of the contract that the waste will be returned. It may not be in the same mix in which it arrived; and it may be that the high-grade waste will be returned and low-grade waste will be stored ready for disposal in this country, as happens at the moment.